The court concluded that for abetment of suicide under Section 306, there must be clear instigation or action compelling the victim to commit suicide; mere allegations of harassment do not suffice.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the charge dated 10.10.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 2017, State vs. Asha Solanki and another, by the court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun (“the case”). By it, the petitioners have been charged for the offence under Section 306 /34 IPC .

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The factual matrix is in a very short compass. The deceased Nikita was a student of Class VIII. On 09.03.2016, she was writing her examination. According to the FIR, in the school, the petitioners, who were teachers in the school did maar peet with her and harassed her. The deceased after returning from the examination hall revealed it to her mother that due to beating up by the petitioners, she could not write well in the examination. Subsequently, she committed suicide. The FIR records that the CCTV footages revealed that the petitioners were beating up to the deceased. According to the FIR, it was the petitioners, who abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The FIR of the incident was given by the father of the deceased on 10.03.2016, based on which, an investigation was carried out and charge-sheet submitted against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 IPC . When cognizance was taken, it was challenged by the petitioners in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bearing No. C-482 No.868 of 2016. It was decided on 24.10.2016. The Court observed as follows:-

“In view of the suicide note and the reports of the F.S.L., Chandigarh as well as from F.S.L., Dehradun, there is no merit in the case. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, it shall be open to the applicants to move appropriate application(s) seeking bail before the trial court. The trial court shall decide the application on the same day, when it is presented.”

4. The case proceeded and on 10.10.2017, charge was framed, it is impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is not the case of abetment at all. Both the petitioners were not regular teachers in the school. The petitioner no.1, Smt. Asha Solanki was the Member of Flying Squad and the petitioner no.2, Smt. Jyoti Agarwal was the Invigilator. On the date of incident, the deceased was found cheating in the examination. She was given “B” answer-sheet and remarks were made thereon. The deceased returned to her house and after a long interval she committed suicide, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that it is a case of abetment to suicide.

6. It is also argued that, in fact, the petitioners did not have any occasion prior interaction with the deceased. They were not concerned with the deceased in any manner, except on 09.03.2016, when the deceased was caught cheating in the examination. It is argued that there is no basis to frame charge; accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

7. Learned State counsel would very fairly concede that, in fact, in the instant case, offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out.

8. Section 306 IPC provides punishment for abetment to suicide. It reads as hereunder:-

“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, an